Government

Government is as inevitable as crime, and for the same reason. The movement, in all its forms, called anarchy, is a great mistake. To seek what is impossible, or worse, to actually take measures to secure it, is both a waste of human energy and time as well as a great evil. It is no more possible to eradicate government than to eradicate stupidity, again for the same reason. The problem with all societies is the material of which they are comprise, and until the human race changes, there will always be government, if, for no other reason (of which, in fact, there are many) then the chronic terror of most people of being responsible for their own lives and the unending supply of others who are more than eager to take over the responsibility for them.

What do you suppose a government is? For most people the government is held in the same kind of mystic awe as their God. Because, in America, people are taught they have a right to vote, and are even encouraged to participate in the process, being assured that, thereby, the government will be representing them. So, like there God, the government is to most people an entity beyond their comprehension that is there to ensure they are happy and successful and, like their God, they can influence the government by voting just as they influence their God by praying.

“In a free society government exists to prevent violence, theft, and fraud,” is what most libertarians and objectivists believe. (By violence, they mean the initiation or threat of physical force.) What all of these sincere freedom lovers do not understand is that government is the one and only agency that is a threat to freedom and no government is able to prevent violence, theft, or fraud. All that any government is able to do is to come in after the fact, after the woman has been raped, after the house has been burglarized, or after the elderly person has lost all their money to the con artist and attempt to discover and prosecute the perpetrator (which does the victim no good at all).

Government is never able to do what the theorists believe government is intended to do. It cannot even do what most people believe is the most important thing, to prevent an invasion by a foreign government. In every war, some government, ‘wins,’ and some government, ‘looses,’ but in every war the citizens of all the countries involved loose. Governments only attack countries which have governments. (There is no record of what happens when a countries do not have a governments.)

Morality and government are mutually exclusive. Morality excludes the initiation of the use of force, or coercion. There is no possible concept of government that is not coercive.

A constitutional republic is supposed, by many, to be one form of government capable of being moral. It is supposed if the principles of individual freedom and a capitalist economy are incorporated into a constitution and that constitution is the supreme law and all other laws conform to it, a truly moral government is the result..

This belief is only possible because the nature of government, itself, is misunderstood or ignored.

A government, according to Ayn Rand, who believed in a moral constitutional government, “… is an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area.”

In another place she wrote, “The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals, the army, to protect you from foreign invaders, and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law. But a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality, such a government reverses its only moral purpose and switches from the role of protector to the role of man’s deadliest enemy, from the role of policeman to the role of a criminal vested with the right to the wielding of violence against victims deprived of the right of self defense. Such a government substitutes for morality the following rule of social conduct: you may do whatever your please to your neighbor, provided your gang is bigger than his.”

The last part of the previous paragraph describes what the American government is today. It is why you constantly hear the clamor for “democracy” and the “will of the people,” the popular expression of the principle, “we have a right to it, because our gang is bigger than your gang.”

The American government has become what it is today, because it has always been an agency that initiates the use of force against its citizens, because that is what a government is. It is impossible for an institution to hold the exclusive power to enforce rules of any kind in a given geographical area without being, in principle, an agency with the power to initiate the use of force.

Even if it is assumed the rules a government enforces are always reasonable and objective and the government only acts as a policeman protecting the citizens from those who would use force¹, every citizen living in the geographical area the government has presumed title to, will be forced to accept that government’s protection, whether he wants it or not. If citizens are free to choose whether or not they will be ruled by a particular government, and are free to choose a different government if they like, or none at all, no government could hold the exclusive power to enforce rules in a given geographical area. Unless a government has the power to force everyone in a geographical area to accept it as their government, it is not a government.

Implicit in the definition of government is the power to initiate the use of force. One can attempt to make government moral by exclusion of the initiation of force in the definition of government but the result is not a definition, it is a self-contradiction.

When gangsters compete for territory, the winning gang is called the government.

This is obviously true in all of history except the most recent, that is, within the last 400 years. Nothing has actually changed, however. As people learned the true nature of government, and discovered they could form their own gangs to overthrow the gangs in power, governments had to find ways to keep this from happening. The way to do this is to insure more people believe they are already part of the ruling gang then there are who know they aren’t. All of modern politics is the development of this method.

The supposed purpose of government is to protect its citizens from crime, foreign invasion, and breach of contract. In fact, no government has ever done any of these things, and never will, because it is impossible. The best that government can do is to come in after a crime has been committed, the country has been invaded, or the contract breached and try to rectify the situation. What it usually does is cause more harm to both the victim and perpetrator, cause greater destruction than the invaders, and cause greater fiscal harm to both parties of the contract, without improving anything.

Someone once told me that in a certain country, they had no crime, because the laws and penalties were so severe. “If you commit a crime there, they cut your hand off, and if you do it again, they execute you.” I asked my informant if he had ever seen this severe law carried out. “Oh, yes, many times,” he assured me. It did not occur to him that what he told me was impossible. If such measures actually did prevent crime, where did the criminals come from that were maimed and executed? There is no doubt that such measures reduce crime in some ways, thieves with only one hand can probably only steal half as much as thieves with two, and those that are executed probably never steal at all, anymore.

I have a strong suspicion those countries with the severest and cruelest laws frequently have low crime rates because they are also, usually, the poorest countries, so there is just not that much to steal. I suppose the governments of such countries might be given credit for keeping their citizens from being victims of theft by keeping them in poverty. It is doubtful if any government would take the credit on those terms, however.

As for the prevention of crime and aggression, no government has ever successfully done that. It cannot. Some countries do enjoy a certain level of freedom from some kinds of crime, and the governments of those countries obviously take the credit, but it is always cultural and economic conditions which are the real reason certain crimes are not committed, that, and the fact that in such countries, the government has a monopoly on certain crimes and crushes all private competition.

A government is an organization that exists for the sole purpose of enabling some people to impose their will and desires on other individuals by means for force.

All other definitions of government are outright frauds or terrible mistakes. There are other organizations that exist for the same purpose, which are not called governments. They’re called mobs or crime syndicates. For clarity’s sake they all ought to be called governments or they all ought to be called crime syndicates. This is probably unfair, however. Crime syndicates do not pretend they want to control people for their own good.

A society comprised entirely of honest, competent, productive, healthy, reasonable individuals would have no use for a government. Governments exist because societies are comprised mostly of dishonest, incompetent, unproductive, sick, and unreasonable people.

Well, this is what every government claims, although they don’t put it in these terms. “Governments exist to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves.” If I am honest, able to provide for myself, and always deal reasonably with other people, and all the people I deal with are the same, for what do I need a government?

“Sure, you can take care of yourself, but what about all the people…?” What? What about what people? You mean, what about the dishonest people, how would I defend myself against them? I need a government because there are dishonest people. Well, even if there are some people who are dishonest, I believe I and my honest friends can protect ourselves from them. Or, maybe you mean, what about the incompetent? Well, what about them. Can they do anything? Then they ought to do it. Can they do nothing? Then what do they need money for? Never mind, as long as their aren’t too many, I and my competent friends will take care of them. Or, maybe you mean, what about the sick?

Sickness is not immoral, but using sickness as a claim on anyone else’s time or money is immoral. I know the sick person can’t help being sick, I know it’s not his fault, but it certainly isn’t the fault of the person who isn’t sick. Now, real long-term non-self-induced debilitating sickness is rather rare. (There are a lot of debilitated people in society that got that way by their own choice.) I believe I and my healthy friends will have no problem taking care of those who are truly innocent victims of disease.

But actually, it is not sickness that is meant, but what is called today, the handicapped. For every individual with a handicap it is claimed makes it impossible for them to succeed or live, there are others with the same handicap who are completely successful and happy. I know one person with only one arm and one leg and others with missing or paralyzed limbs, others who are blind or deaf, and some that live in constant pain who not only support themselves, but are stars in their professions and support many others. There is no such thing as a handicap, or else, everyone is handicapped. There is not one individual who could not claim, if they chose, to be unable to make it without help because of some condition or problem. Those who make the claim have the kind of sickness which neither I or any of my friends can help or would if we could.

If you believe that society is comprised mostly of honest, competent, productive, healthy, and reasonable individuals, then you know we can take care of the occasional exception ourselves without a government. But, of course, you don’t believe that. You believe there are two many dishonest, incompetent, unproductive, sick, and unreasonable people for us to handle, so we need a government. Well, that’s all I said in the first place.

All government employees are corrupt.

All government employees are paid with money confiscated from others by the threat of force, which in some cases is carried out. When money is confiscated by means of force, the only correct term for that action is theft. Therefore, all government employees are pad with money stolen from others.

Every service or product the government provides depends either on forcibly preventing others from providing the service or confiscating the product from someone else who has produced it. (Some so-called “services” of the government are actually intrusions in the lives and property of individuals which no one desires or benefits from.) There is no useful product or service the government supposedly provides that could not be better provided by private enterprise. Therefore every government employee’s job is at the expense of private citizens who are prevented from doing the same job by the government.

Maybe there are some government employees who are so ignorant they are unaware of the true nature of their jobs and we can forgive them. We can find out by asking them if they are so dumb they don’t know the true nature of their employment. Let’s start with the school teachers, then every member of any kind of regulatory agency. Don’t forget your state and city government employees.

Anyone who enjoys benefits from the government is a receiver of stolen goods.

(See previous.)

A government is an organization that claims the right to initiate the use of force against individuals to satisfy its own purposes. An individual that does this is called a thug. A group of individuals who do this are called gangsters, that is, unless they write down their intentions in noble terms and call it a Constitution; then the gangsters are called presidents, senators and congressmen.

The nature of anything is determined by what it does. A government does the same things any gang of thugs does, but by giving itself fancy titles and convincing people of its legitimacy through a number of clever ruses, such as constitutions, elections, gang rules, (which it calls laws), and loads of formal rituals, and perpetually pontificating about its concern with justice, peace, and the good of the people, it hides its nature behind the screen of respectability and the gullibility of its victims, which are called citizens.

What distinguishes government from all other organizations is its assumed right to initiate the use of force against it citizens to expropriate their property for its own support. A voluntarily supported government is a contradiction in terms.

There are many people who believe a government can be supported voluntarily. It is theoretically possible that a government might be formed that did not have to use force to have the total agreement of its citizenry for that government to exercise rule over them, and they might even voluntarily support that government financially. How long such a government could continue before, at least one citizen decided they would no longer support it or accept it as their government cannot be estimated, but when it happened, the government would have to use force to make that wayward citizen conform, or cease to exist as a government. Even if a government is supported voluntarily, it must have always the option to initiate the use of force, or it is not a government.

An organization, whatever it does, that does not have the power to initiate the use of force and is supported entirely voluntarily is not a government.

All Rulers, czars, emperors, kings, chairmen, presidents, are the basest of men. To believe or expect anything else flies in the face of reason and revelation. At least, that is what the Bible teaches. (–Daniel 4:17).

Just for those Christians who believe government is something noble and good because God ordains it. The Bible teaches that God ultimately determines the fate of nations and their rulers, and uses them to accomplish His purpose. But government is the invention of men, and whenever they sought His advice, which was rare, God told men to choose not to have a government, but we know what they chose.

The mistake most people make when dealing with the government is to suppose that it can be dealt with rationally. A government is based on the irrational principle of the initiation of the use of force as a means of dealing with people. To attempt to reason with the government is like reasoning with a pack of wild beasts bent on eating you.

Most people who get in trouble with the government at any level do so because they completely misunderstand the nature of government. It is never reasonable, it is never there to help you, and it is never there to make your life better. It is there for only one purpose, to perpetuate and strengthen itself for the benefit of those that run it, period.

If in any relationship with the government it sees you as a threat to its one purpose, you will certainly have trouble with it. Never try to convince the government by appealing to its concern with your affairs, what’s fair or good for you or how what you’re seeking would be good for you. The government doesn’t care, unless, somehow, what is good for you will advance their cause and fulfill its purpose. Don’t every threaten the government, it has the most guns and will gladly use them.

Generally, the way to deal with the government is the way you would deal with any irrational and dangerous animal: avoid it as much as possible, do nothing to draw its attention to you, (if you don’t bother it, it will usually leave you alone). If forced to deal with it, find out what it wants and the cheapest way to satisfy it. As quietly and calmly as possible, meet the demands and move on. It will be so busy looking for new victims, it may never notice you again.

In spite of the hugely intrusive nature of government today and the almost infinite number of laws and regulations which bear on almost every aspect of life from birth to death, most of us spend most of our days giving very little thought about the government or its regulations, which only affect us when we run smack up against one of them, such as at tax time, or when we see those blue lights in our rear view mirror. If your are a business man, of course, your are much more aware of them.

No matter to what degree you are forced to consider government regulations and laws, most can be conformed to by some do-ti-once-and-be-done-with-it method. It is impossible to escape doing things we don’t like in this life and even if there were no government, there would be nasty chores to be taken care of. It is almost always cheaper and easier to do the one required thing than to attempt to avoid the step or beat it.

At this point someone is bound to say, “what if everybody just does what the government tells them and no one ever protests? Won’t the government just take over everything?”

First of all everybody won’t. “What if everybody did…anything,” is always a stupid argument for two reasons. What if everybody was a doctor, who would collect the garbage, pump the gas, cook the food? No matter what you pick, if everybody did it, it would be a disaster, because it would exclude anybody doing anything else. But, the fact is, everybody is different and there is nothing that everybody will ever do. So the argument is always pointless.

Nothing you do is going to change the government. Sometime, some small changes can be brought about by very large efforts by very great numbers of people, and sometimes those changes are for the good, (that is, limiting some aspect of government), but the changes are never very great and never last very long and are never ultimately worth the effort and expense. Most of the changes brought about in this manner, however, actually make government worse, by granting it more power of some kind.

If you must fight the government, be prepared for a fight to the death, which will almost certainly be yours.

Recent American history should be all the evidence anyone needs to be convinced of this.

The government is no more your enemy than the fisher cat that invades your chicken coop is your enemy. The word enemy ought to be reserved for those worthy of it.

The fisher cat does not even consider you when it finds a way to get into your chicken coop to help itself to a convenient meal. If you happen to be there when it arrives, it will probably run, but corner it, and you will find out just how vicious a cornered predator can be. Unless you have a gun, you better back off and hope it will leave on its own.

Generally, the problem can be avoided by not allowing the fisher cat to even suspect you have chickens or at least making it impossible for it to get into the chicken coop. There are plenty of easy pickin’s around and it will not bother you again. This is exactly the method one needs to use with the government.

The government is not a rational agency, it is an irrational force that, like the weather, cannot be controlled, but can be dealt with. We do not deal with the weather by reasoning with it, reforming it, or becoming weather activists. The weather will do whatever it does, and government will do whatever it does and nothing you do will change either. There are methods of predicting, at least short range, what the weather is likely to do and taking appropriate measures to deal with it. There are methods of predicting, at least short range, what a government will do and taking appropriate measures to deal with it. Still, there is always some surprise with both. This also can be planned for an dealt with.

The inevitability of government is determined by the makeup of society. So long as societies are dominated by the two classes of people that make government necessary, those who want and expect more than they can earn or produce by their own effort and those who do not believe they are competent to understand the world and live in it successfully, there will be governments. For the two classes of individuals that necessitate government, government is just what they want, and they need no instruction about how to deal with it. They know. They either run it or obey it.

For those rare individuals who desires all they are capable of earning and producing and nothing more, who know they are competent to produce all they will need in this world, government is a necessary bother, like a cold or fatigue, just another fact of reality to be dealt with. For such individuals, the concepts that define government and by which it functions are totally foreign, and they must make great effort to understand them.

One of the first things they learn is that most of the people in a society which make a government both necessary and possible will not bother to learn the concepts that define free individuals and the principles by which they live. In such a society they are not going to be understood or appreciated. If that society still enjoys a modest level of economic prosperity and freedom, those who are enjoying those benefits will never recognize it is the small number of self-sufficient misfits they hate that make it possible.

“Without government there would be anarchy and chaos. So!?”

Anarchy means people are free to run around and do whatever they please whenever they please. You know, like at a shopping mall. There is no one there to tell people when they are supposed to be there, where they are supposed to go after they get there, or what to do while they are there. The total failure of shopping malls is proof of the danger of such anarchy. Not only that, if you just saw all the random paths that everyone one took, you would have a perfect picture of chaos. Awful, isn’t it, when you think how ordered and controlled shopping could be, as exemplified by Soviet Russia before their economic collapse.

There is government because most people are terrified of chaos. They prefer the government alternatives: war, corruption, and tyranny.

Government is the only human institution that makes a profession of those things which when committed by amateurs are called crimes.

Without government there would be anarchy and chaos. With government there is war, taxes, corruption, oppression, coercion, and terror. Maybe you think these things are order.

It is not possible to convince the kind of person who desires government that he would be better off without a government. His terror of being on his own is so great, he will endure any amount of oppression and deprivation rather than give up the security of government protection and promises.